You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The evidence based dilemma of intraperitoneal drainage for pancreatic resection – a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Surgery, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2482-14-76 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrich Nitsche, Tara C Müller, Christoph Späth, Lynne Cresswell, Dirk Wilhelm, Helmut Friess, Christoph W Michalski, Jörg Kleeff |
| Abstract |
Routine placement of intraperitoneal drains has been shown to be ineffective or potentially harmful in various abdominal surgical procedures. Studies assessing risks and benefits of abdominal drains for pancreatic resections have demonstrated inconsistent results. We thus performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analyzed outcomes of pancreatic resections with and without intraoperative placement of drains. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 22 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,380,628
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#617
of 1,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,216
of 255,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,319 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,128 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.